Scores are completely ignored in the lottery

[visiblebranch]

Dear Developer

Unfortunately, with a large data set (as for in your whitelist with 15k+ users) there is almost no weight given to the scores. random.random function was simply useless for this whitelisting.

Inverse transform sampling is not working with a combination of large data set and your chosen function.

I have attached an analysis of actual data and result in an excel file with this message. You can see that the scores have almost no effect on the selection of the winners.

As a consequence of this, thousands of QuarkChain’s loyal community members who actively participated and contributed in the project (by creating videos and blogs) had barely any advantage of doing so. It feels like they were simply used QuarkChain’s hype.

Most importantly, it was told various times by QuarkChain in different steemit articles and in telegram chat that the higher scores will give community members a higher chance of winning. This was simply not done.

I hope you guys are developing blockchain in a better way than your whitelisting. If that is being developed in the same way as whitelist.py, I don’t see QuarkChain as a credible project

Thanks quarkchain lottery - Copy.xlsx

[QuarkChain]

Thanks for pointing this out. However, I checked the xlsx, and I just find a single realization of whitelist. As a common knowledge of statistics, single realization doesn't tell you the true, i.e., the actual probability of each candidate.

To be more strict, I would suggest you to run monte-carlo simulation to obtain more accurate results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method

In addition, you posted a very similar questions in https://github.com/QuarkChain/crowdsale-whitelist/issues/6 with most part are the same, while the following sentence is ignored:

"This issue was already raised by a github user vinisr (as you can see in an earlier message), however, you didn't follow his advice. His advice was to use random.choice method as explained in python guideline. "

We already explained that random.choices() is actually doing the same thing as us. Not sure why this sentence disappears in this version and curious about what is your response. Thanks.

[visiblebranch]

Dear QuarkChain,

You do not have to throw irrelevant terms to impress people here.

The simple question here is: Did higher scores have a higher chance of winning in your lottery? The simple answer to this is NO, HIGHER SCORES DID NOT HAVE A HIGHER CHANCE OF WINNING All you have to do is to look at this excel file https://github.com/QuarkChain/crowdsale-whitelist/files/2086839/quarkchain.lottery.-.Copy.xlsx

Simply accept the fact and apologize. Maybe higher beter developers as well as the ones who programmed the lottery clearly can't build a blockchain.